Due to the massive drug epidemic in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a call to change the laws surrounding penalties for drug possession. It began as an effort to reduce the sale and use of illicit drugs. This law was known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The law stated that if a person was in possession of four ounces of narcotics, the minimum sentence would be fifteen years to life. That was about the same amount of time as someone convicted of second-degree murder. It was one of the most abrasive measures taken in the war on drugs. There were several problems surrounding these laws; If those convicted were better served in a treatment center, the conviction rate would remain high, but crime would not decrease, and recidivism rates would increase for nonviolent offenders. In April 2009, the state legislature repealed the Rockefeller drug laws. Reform has moved from mass incarceration to a public health model. The two key elements of this reform were the removal of mandatory minimum sentences and the restoration of the judge's discretion to order treatment and rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Since the reform, the legislation has been constantly revised. He added the removal of jail warrants and created more court diversion programs, such as drug courts. Drug courts were initially established in the early 1990s and had a unique style of individual rewards and consequences based on their actions in hopes of helping them successfully reintegrate into the community. With this model it leaves a lot of gray area and is very subjective. Stricter laws later reformed this idea. When judicial power was restored to judges, they then had the power to place clients in the middle of paper......m, they will reside with Riker until the court releases them, which usually has a quick tour. around time. They must then complete drug programs and, in most cases, their sentences or charges are reduced. This supports the rehabilitation versus retribution model. Working at Riker, I see first-hand the emotional strain that parole causes on clients. The constant check-ins and meetings here as well as the drug tests are overwhelming and tedious. My clients specifically committed crimes there almost 20 years ago. They are both in their forties or fifties. My clients have difficulty seeing themselves as adults. They both live drug-free lives, but still have to report for parole. They constantly have an authority figure dictating their lives. Clients reported that their problems with parole stemmed from their resistance to reporting for parole..